Skip to content

HACKETT: Threats to journalists a step too far

I really wanted to write about dogs this week.
30201912_web1_220316-RDA-Welcome-Column-ByronHeadshot_1

I really wanted to write about dogs this week.

After all, Friday was International Dog Day, I have two wonderful dogs (that aren’t always completely wonderful) – I was hoping to wax poetically about all their accomplishments and how I’m the best dog parent ever (no chance).

However, I would be remiss in my position of relatively small influence if I didn’t shed light on a greater problem – one that many people probably aren’t aware of for several reasons.

Violent threats to journalists over the past several weeks have become increasingly common. Particularly, female journalists and female journalists of colour. As you are probably quite aware, I am neither of those things. I am a white, privileged male, who has never had to endure such threats, in the course of simply doing my job. While I haven’t been threatened personally, I think this problem deserves more attention, as it underscores a greater threat to discourse than we’ve ever witnessed in society. It is a breakdown of common decency. It is a trip into a dangerous reality where faceless, nameless threats routinely enter the inbox of people trying to do hard, honest work to promote the well-being of their community.

To allow these threats to continue unchecked and uncalled out would be a dereliction of duty on my part and allows those perpetrators to become more emboldened.

The reason you likely haven’t heard of this is that journalists do not like talking about themselves. It is not in our nature. Cover the story, do not become a part of it.

Most of the conversation surrounding these threats, where a number of female journalists have bravely spoken out against them, have taken place on Twitter and not in the public discourse.

One particular female journalist who has been at the centre of threats had a man with a gun threaten her family. She has been subject to vile, unthinkable threats mostly through nameless emails.

This is where I need to make a careful distinction. Threatening a journalist, a.k.a. telling them you will harm them, is absolutely, unequivocally different than criticizing their work. Most journalists I know and have encountered over the years have developed a thick skin for criticism. If you think a position presented is unfair or biased, feel free to point that out with your own evidence and a debate of the issue is more than welcome. There is absolutely no need, under any circumstance to threaten a journalist.

And to be fair, I think it is a small, isolated group of individuals that are participating in this heinous crime – and let’s be clear, issuing threats to someone, even if it is from behind a computer, is a crime. Again, criticize the work, do not attack the person.

There has been widespread condemnation of the attacks on journalists, including Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. I disagree with the honourable prime minister on many issues and believe he has poorly handled a lot of things as leader of this country. It was easy to stand up and defend journalists, it didn’t take a lot of time or effort. Yet, members of other parties choose to criticize those who shared stories of threats or make false equivalencies between the threats and other stories. Some journalists at certain publications even tried the turn the tables and pretend like the threats were somehow merited.

For their positions on policy, I have heard of many female politicians, right and left, facing similar threats.

To the point where they need security details. This is not right. We as a society are better than this. At least that’s what I choose to believe because I don’t want to live in world where people who try and make the world a better and more informed place are silenced for sharing their opinion. We should be able to disagree sensibly. It is hard sometimes, but can we not at least ask for that from our fellow citizens? I think during the COVID-19 pandemic we lost our way about how to respectfully disagree with those who shared a different opinion than we did. Lives were uprooted, our world was turned upside down and many were left isolated and that is a terrible tragedy in part, because it led to a place where people lived in an echo chamber of opinions that only aligned with theirs. But that is not how the world works. It never has. Debate, political and social is an integral part of the fabric of humanity.

There is an engine driving this hate, one that thinks as a society we’re better off divided or at least it is an easier avenue to power if people are angry. That’s what Jason Kenney thought, with his ruthless and unrelenting attacks on the Prime Minister and Ottawa. To an extent, he captured an attitude that is prominent and strong in Alberta. And to an extent, understandable. But it has born something ugly and it is manifesting in the UCP leadership race. There are candidates with good ideas, that are getting drowned out by nonsense and is only designed to stir up fear and division.

All that circles back to an angry society, one who thinks threatening the person who writes an article about an issue is the one they should have a problem with.

Journalists are extremely accessible today, more than they’ve ever been. Back in the day, you had to phone up a journalist and issue a threat personally over the phone or write a letter that took time and energy to craft.

In my opinion, that barrier dissipated and quelled a lot of the hate. With Twitter and Facebook and email, those barriers no longer exist.

A journalist is just another person, out there trying to do their best to make sense of the world. And pass that info on to you. Think about that the next time you disagree with one.

Byron Hackett is the Managing Editor of the Red Deer Advocate.



Byron Hackett

About the Author: Byron Hackett

Byron has been the sports reporter at the advocate since December of 2016. He likes to spend his time in cold hockey arenas accompanied by luke warm, watered down coffee.
Read more